Make your own free website on Tripod.com

THE WAY E-MAGA-ZINE(Online Magazine)
Home | Other Ministries | Febuary 2002 | March 2002 | Daily Devotional Newest Links | JULY ISSUE | June Issue | AUGUST ISSUE | May 2002 Issue | JANUARY 2002 | November E-maga-zine | April Issue | LINKS PAGE | December 2001 | March Issue | April 2002 | Article Page | Interview Page | Reviews Page | Mailbag | Contact Me | Archives
March 2002
THE WAY MINISTRIES E-MAG-A-ZINE

MARCH 2002 Issue

WELCOME!!!!
THE WAY MINISTRIES
and
BLACK-TOP GOSPEL MUSIC MINISTRY
Vol. 1 Issue # 11
March 2002 issue

THE WAY MINISTRIES

Please rate this Ezine at the Cumuli Ezine Finder
http://www.cumuli.com/ezines/ra20864.rate


http://www.cumuli.com/ezines/ra20864.rate



Please support our sponsors by going to the above links.
===========================================

The on-line e-maga-zine is published and edited by:

http://jamesfriesen.tripod.com/thewayemagazineonlinemagazine/

The Way Ministries Pen Friends

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christianefriends/



The Way Ministries

http://communities.msn.ca/NewTestamentChurchRevivalTheWay/homepage




***************************************************************

This e-maga-zine will contain the following sections.

Main article
Inspirational Story.
Womens Section.
News Story.
Featured Web Sites in this Issue.

*************************************************************************

GREAT SITE FOR WOMEN
http://friesen-jameloretta.tripod.com/theway/



GREAT SITE FOR ALL

http://www.frc.org/





*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you saying,
"THIS IS THE WAY; WALK IN IT. Isa. 30: 21
After two months of articles on modern persecution.
The Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, is a return to historical articles We hope that you have enjoyed the last series. An article follows it on Bible TRANSLATION
however as the Way Ministries stands for the Re-establishment of the New Testament Church; it is appropriate for us to run these articles at this time. We as Christians must be prepared to take our stand for the truth. We would also be interested in any news items that you may have to place in our on line E-Maga-zine

+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
The Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre

                         The Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre

Suspicious and scared, the king of France ordered a political assassination. Then the real killing began.

Scott M. Manetsch

Before dawn on the morning of August 24, 1572, church bells tolled in the Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois quarter of Paris. Just moments earlier, soldiers under the command of Henri, duke of Guise, had overcome resistance and assassinated the admiral of France, Huguenot leader Gaspard de Coligny, in his bedroom. They threw the body from the window to the ground below, where angry crowds later mutilated it, cutting off the head and hands, and dragged it through the streets of Paris. As Guise walked away from Coligny's lodging, he was overheard to say, "it is the king's command."

The killing unleashed an explosion of popular hatred against Protestants throughout the city. In the terrible days that followed, some 3,000 Huguenots were killed in Paris and perhaps another 8,000 in other provincial cities.

This season of bloodknown as the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacredecisively ended Huguenot hopes to transform France into a Protestant kingdom. It remains one of the most horrifying episodes in the Reformation era.

The dangerous decade
Historians have long debated the causes of the massacres of 1572. Drawing upon Francis Hotman's De Furoribus Gallicis (1573), Protestant interpreters since the sixteenth century have often portrayed Coligny and his coreligionists as heroic victims of a premeditated plot to destroy the Huguenot movement, masterminded by the wicked queen mother, Catherine de Médicis.

Catholic historians, on the other hand, have usually followed the royal interpretation that the king, Charles IX, issued two days after the violence began. In this view, the king and his council ordered the violence as a justified preemptive strike to protect the Catholic crown from a Protestant revolt.

Although differences remain, historians today are in general agreement that the massacres can only be understood in light of the dangerous political developments and seething religious resentments of the preceding decade.

The premature death, following a jousting accident, of King Henri II in 1559 created a protracted political crisis in France. His sons who succeeded him in turnFrancis II (1559-60), Charles IX (1560-74), and Henri III (1574-89)were young and weak, subject to their ambitious mother, and vulnerable to manipulation by powerful noble factions.

The explosive growth of Protestantism in France only exacerbated this dangerous political situation. By 1562, there were perhaps two million Protestants and nearly 1,250 Reformed churches in France, flourishing despite repeated royal censures and harsh persecution.

"We have churches in nearly all the cities of the realm," boasted Jean Morély, "and soon there will be scarcely a place where one has not been established." Such unbridled optimism was shattered by the onset of war in the spring of 1562. Nonetheless, the powerful Protestant party remained a dangerous factor in the French political crisis.

For the next decade, Catherine and Charles IX struggled feebly between two competing noble factions. The Huguenot party was championed by the admiral Coligny, Louis of Condé (until his death in 1569), and the young Bourbon princes Henri of Navarre and Henri of Condé. It sought legal recognition and freedom of worship for the Reformed churches. The Catholic faction, led by the powerful Guise family, defended the time-honored French tradition of "one king, one faith, one law" and demanded the extermination of the Protestant heresy.

Violence radicalized both Catholic and Huguenot positions and fueled popular resentments. During the decade before Saint Bartholomew's Day, France was ravaged by three successive religious wars. The first war of religion began in April 1562, shortly after Francis, duke of Guise, and his soldiers slaughtered some 60 Protestants who were worshipping in a barn at Vassy.

The war ended a year later in a military stalemate when Francis himself fell to an assassin's bullet. The Guise family promised to avenge his death by killing Coligny, whom they suspected (probably incorrectly), of ordering the assassination. This rhythm of sectarian violence and retribution recurred in the second (1567-68) and third (1568-70) religious wars, as well as in hundreds of local riots and massacres.

Historian Natalie Zemon Davis has noted that in religious riots Huguenots tended to attack property, while Catholics more frequently attacked people. Nevertheless, both groups used deadly force.

Protestant crowds pillaged and desecrated churches, smashed Catholic images, and assaulted priests and monks. At a riot at Saint Médard's Church in 1561, they paraded through the streets, chanting "The Gospel, the Gospel; where are the idolatrous priests?"

Catholic crowds, in turn, showered insults and stones on Huguenot neighbors, burned Protestant Bibles and books, and disrupted Reformed worship services to cleanse their towns of the pollution of heresy. Sometimes they took more drastic measures, incited by inflammatory sermons or placards. One placard posted in Paris in 1566 proclaimed, "Cut them downburn themkill them without a qualm."

Massacres spawned by such sectarian hatred became increasingly common. In the months prior to Saint Bartholomew's Day, angry mobs massacred Protestants in Orange, Rouen, Troyes, and Dieppe. The French king was powerless to stop the violence.

Prelude to massacre
On Monday, August 18, 1572, the Protestant prince Henri of Navarre married Margaret of Valois, the sister of King Charles IX, in a lavish ceremony in Paris' Notre Dame cathedral. In the week that followed, French notables indulged in sumptuous banquets, formal balls, and colorful tournaments. Protestant nobles in the entourage of Navarre, Coligny, and Condé were welcomed guests at the wedding and walked freely about the city.

The monarchy hoped that this marriage alliance of Valois and Bourbon would help to heal sectarian hatred and end a decade of civil war. Nevertheless, religious tensions remained high.

Catholic preachers had long threatened the terrible judgment of heaven if the marriage took place. As Bishop Simon Vigor reportedly preached, "God will not endure this detestable union!" Catholics suspected that the royal marriage indicated the king's willingness to work with sworn enemies and heretics.

This rapprochement between the crown and the Huguenots had ominous political implications as well. It appeared that Charles now endorsed Coligny's plan to "export" the French religious wars to the Netherlands by sending a united force against the Spanish armies of the duke of Alva, which were attacking Dutch Protestants on the northern frontier of France.

From a Catholic perspective, both the unwelcome marriage and Coligny's influence at court in the summer of 1572 threatened to bring not peace, but war with arch-rival Spain. The pageantry and festivities surrounding the royal wedding did not quiet these lurking fears and deep resentments.

The uneasy calm was shattered on Friday morning, August 22. A would-be assassin named Maurevert fired two shots from a window, wounding Coligny in the right hand and left arm as he returned from a meeting with the king. The admiral's companions rushed him to the safety of his lodging, where other Huguenot leaders soon joined him.

The king and his council visited the admiral at his bedside later in the afternoon. They found the Huguenots angry and distrustful, demanding prompt royal action and threatening vengeance. Coligny and his company found little consolation in Charles IX's repeated promises to find and punish the attacker. Rumors of the assassination attempt and the angry Huguenot reaction spread quickly through the streets of Paris, deepening the climate of suspicion, fear, and hatred.

Historians have usually accused Catherine de Médicis of hiring Maurevert to kill Coligny. They argue that the queen mother was envious of the admiral's influence over her son Charles and wished to avert war with Spain. Other historians have suggested that Maurevert acted alone or was hired by the duke of Alva. More likely (though impossible to prove), the assassination was ordered by one or more members of the Guise family, seeking to satisfy the longstanding vendetta against Coligny. Regardless of motive, the abortive attack was the fuse that detonated the general massacre two days later.

In an emergency session of the royal council on Saturday evening, August 23, the king, his brother Henri, duke of Anjou, Catherine, and other trusted advisers concluded that the Huguenot leaders should be killed. Primary responsibility for the assassinations was given to the royal guard and to the soldiers of Anjou, under the command of Henri, duke of Guise, and the duke of Aumale.

That same evening, the king ordered the mayor to close the city gates, chain boats on the Seine, and mobilize the militia. Sources are unclear whether the council's decision was due to panic, resulting from a real or imagined Huguenot plot, or a calculated attempt to annihilate or weaken the Huguenot leadership in view of impending civil war. What is almost certain, however, is that the plan was not premeditated, but a response to the crisis created by Maurevert's assault on Coligny. Likewise, the council clearly did not anticipate the mob violence unleashed by the royally sanctioned murders.

The season of blood

The killing began around 4 a.m. After assassinating Coligny, the royal guard turned on other Huguenot leaders. Some were executed by the sword, still rubbing sleep from their eyes. Others were shot by harquebuses as they tried to flee. A few died with sword in hand. In the Louvre, the Bourbon princes Navarre and Condé were placed under house arrest as 30 of their companions were cut down in cold blood.

By dawn the city militia and Catholic extremists had started a prolonged orgy of murder and looting. Mobs attacked Protestants in their homes, indiscriminately slaughtering men, women, and children. Victims were stabbed, shot, or beaten to death; their bloodied bodies were often dismembered, dragged through the streets, and thrown into the Seine. Vigilante bands searched for suspected Protestants and looted their homes and shops.

Despite royal pleas for calm, the violence continued in Paris for almost a week. In this season of blood, Hotman noted bitterly, Huguenot-hunting became a popular sport.

The violence soon spread to other cities in the kingdom. In Orléans the massacres began on August 26. Catholic extremists herded Protestants to the city wall and slaughtered them, mocking their victims by chanting the opening verse of Psalm 43: "Vindicate me, O Godand rescue me from wicked men." In two days, around 1,000 men, women, and children were killed.

In Lyon, city officials placed Protestants under protective custody in the city's convents and jails on August 29. Two days later, crowds broke in and massacred the prisoners by sword, strangulation, and drowning. Witnesses reported that the Rhone River flowed red with several thousand mutilated corpses.

Nearly a dozen other French cities witnessed deadly violence from August to late October, among them Rouen, Saumur, Bourges, Meaux, Bordeaux, and Toulouse. The horror of these months is captured in a Genevan diplomatic dispatch from the period: "The whole of France is bathed in the blood of innocent people and covered with dead bodies. The air is filled with the cries and groans of nobles and commoners, women and children, slaughtered by the hundreds without mercy."

Many Protestants managed to escape. Some found refuge in the Huguenot strongholds of Sancerre and La Rochelle. Thousands of others fled the kingdom, bound for Geneva, Basel, Strasburg, or London. The refugees brought with them stories of shocking brutality and extraordinary courage.

A young boythe future duke of La Forcefeigned death on a Parisian street for several hours beneath the corpses of his father and brother. A Catholic man finally found the blood-covered boy and hid him in his home until he could be brought to safety.

Equally dramatic was the account of Pierre Merlin, Coligny's chaplain. At the admiral's side moments before his death, Merlin fled to a barn and hid in a hayloft three days, narrowly avoiding the probing swords of soldiers searching for him. Thereafter, Merlin and his family found refuge in the household of a noblewoman, who brought them out of Paris in her coach.

As these stories attest, some Protestants survived due to the assistance of Catholic neighbors, who risked their lives to protect the hunted Huguenots.

In the months following Saint Bartholomew's Day, thousands of Protestants recanted their faith. For some, this was a temporary compromise, extracted by torture or mortal danger. For others, it was a permanent decision to abandon a religious cause that now seemed hopeless.

One eyewitness reported more than 5,000 abjurations in Paris alone by the end of September. Even the Bourbon princes Navarre and Condé submitted to threats and (temporarily) converted to Catholicism. Reformed leaders were stunned. Theodore Beza remarked, "The number of apostates almost defies counting!"

Evidence suggests that not all of these conversions were simply the product of fear or cowardice. At least some Protestants were shocked by God's apparent indifference to there plight and viewed the slaughter as divine judgment against them. For Protestants, the brutal massacre raised haunting questions: Why did God remain silent? Had God rejected his Church? These questions remained long after the massacres ended in late October 1572.

As the violence ebbed, both Catholic and Protestant writers attempted to describe and interpret the season of bloodshed. Catholics in Rome and Spain celebrated news of the massacres. The pope even issued a special medallion to commemorate the "holy" event. For many, the death of so many "heretics" was a miraclea conclusion that seemed confirmed by the appearance of the great nova in the night sky in November.

By contrast, Protestant authors recast the horrifying events of 1572 as the age-old story of the "elect" people of God struggling against Satan and his minions. Despite terrible suffering and sorrow, a remnant would remain; God's people would be vindicated. Protestants like Beza clung to this hope: "The Church never triumphs except under the cross."

The massacres in retrospect


Saint Bartholomew's Day dramatically altered the political and religious landscape of France. The Huguenots lost many of their chief nobles and military leaders. Navarre remained alive but discredited; it would take him over a decade to win back the trust and support of his coreligionists. The Huguenot cause seemed to be, in the words of one contemporary, "absolutely defeated."

The massacres also perpetuatedand intensifiedthe cycle of violence and warfare in France. Only weeks after Coligny's death, Catholic forces initiated the fourth War of Religion by laying siege to Protestant strongholds at Sancerre and La Rochelle. Huguenot assemblies in southern France subsequently rebelled against royal authority, laying the foundation for a revolutionary "state within a state."

Political pamphlets written by Huguenot authors such as Francis Hotman, Theodore Beza, and Lambert Daneau provided justification (and encouragement) for such acts of resistance. They argued that kings who committed manifest tyranny forfeited their "contract" to rule and could be resisted by inferior magistrates in the kingdom.

In the decades following Saint Bartholomew's Day, the Huguenots never again trusted the Valois kings. France was shaken by four more religious wars. Reformed churches struggled for survival in a climate of repression, political instability, and social unrest. Although Huguenots welcomed the Edict of Nantes (1598) and the restricted freedoms it promised, they recognized that prospects for reform had been decisively curtailed. Protestants would remain an unpopular minority, living "under the cross" in Catholic France.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/


TRANSLATION WARS

Sharp as debate over the TNIV may be, the version's
translators are getting off easy compared to John Wycliffe
and William Tyndale.

Elesha Coffman and Tony Lane

As publication of the Today's New International Version of the Bible brews controversy among church leaders and translation scholars, it may be useful to remember that the first English Bible translations sparked passions as well. Sometimes deadly flames erupted, as these excerpts from Tony Lane's article in
Christian History issue 43 depict:

The first attempt to translate the complete Bible into English is associated with fourteenth-century theologian John Wycliffe. Toward the end of his life, Wycliffe became critical of the established church, and, as a result, in 1381 he was removed from his post at Oxford University. He withdrew to the
church in Lutterworth, where he was surrounded by disciples who began to translate the Bible into English, certainly under his inspiration and probably at his bidding. There is no
evidence Wycliffe took part in the actual work of translation.

The church did not approve of the translation, but not primarily because it was in English. There were already English translations of parts of the Bible, and nobles and clergy legally owned copies of the Wycliffe translation.

The main problem was that it was the Wycliffe Bible: it was distributed by his followers (the "heretical" Lollards) and used to attack the teachings and practices of the church. In addition, the church was concerned about the effect of Bible reading upon the uneducated laity. The Bible was best left to
the eyes of educated clergy, since salvation was mediated through the teachings of the church and the clergy-led sacraments.

Copies of Wycliffe's books and his Bible translation were burned, as were some of his followers. Wycliffe escaped arrest during his lifetime, but 43 years after his death; officials dug up his body, burned his remains, and threw the ashes into a river.

The Wycliffe Bible was far from perfect; it had been translated not from the original Hebrew and Greek but from the Latin translation known as the Vulgate. In 1516, with the publication of Erasmus's Greek New Testament, the time was ripe for an English translation from the original biblical
languages.

Into this situation came William Tyndale. Tyndale hoped to receive official patronage for an updated translation, but with the new threat of Protestantism, the church hierarchy was
not disposed to allow a vernacular Bible. Bishop Tunstall of London let Tyndale understand, as Tyndale later put it, "not only that there was no room in my lord of London's palace to
translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England."

With the sponsorship of some wealthy merchants, Tyndale left for Germany, where he completed the New Testament in two years. He never completed the Old Testament.

Tyndale translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew (with the help of grammars and Latin and German translations). He is truly the father of the English Bible: some 90 percent of his words passed into the King James Version and about 75 percent into the Revised Standard Version.

Tyndale's translation was also unpopular with church authorities. It was unauthorized and had not been made from the Vulgate, the official version. Furthermore, Tyndale had abandoned traditional terms, substituting "repent" for "do penance," "congregation" for "church," and "elder" for "priest."

In addition, Tyndale had included strongly Lutheran prefacesto various books (some being translations of Luther himself) and strongly Protestant marginal notes, some of which sharply criticized the Catholic Church. In the margin of Exodus 32:5-7, for example, where the people are told not to bring any more offerings for the building of the tabernacle because they have contributed enough, the note reads, "When will the Pope say 'Hoo! [Hold!]' and forbid an offering for the building of
St. Peter's Church?"

Tyndale lived with English merchants in Antwerp, a position of comparative safety. In 1535, however, he was betrayed by a fellow Englishman and arrested. After a year and a half of imprisonment, he was strangled and burned at the stake in Brussels, on October 6, 1536. It is reported that his last words were "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."

Tony Lane is director of postgraduate
research at London
Bible College.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/


+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++


SHORT STORY

What is wrong with the world these days?

Where Did It All Begin Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said, OK..

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem. And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore. Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued. And we accepted their reasoning. Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said, that's a grand idea. Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said that's another great idea. Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. And agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good. And then someone said let's print magazines with nude pictures and call it wholesome down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body and we said we have no problem with that. And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them available on the Internet. And we said they're entitled to their free speech. And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. And let's have movies that encourage rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead. And now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with..."WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."



+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

Womans Section

The following article is a bit of a departure from the standard articles in the Womens section of this E-Maga-Zine. However we thought a look at Womens
fashions from a different point of view might be useful.
We hope the Lord will bless you as you read this article.

Pioneer wives held their households together with a blend of grit and grace.
Diana Lynn Severance
Dress
Speaks.

One's clothing indicates one's identity and image whether rock musician or sophisticated businessperson. Dress often makes a statement about an individual's social and
economic status. Dress can communicate one's occupation: policeman, soldier, nurse, and fast-food worker.
The plain people are Christians who believe discipleship encompasses every area of life, including dress. They do not separate doctrine from daily living. They are convinced that a true follower of Jesus Christ will be recognized not only by conduct and speech but also by appearance. The plain people look different because they believe God's people should be distinctly separate from the surrounding world. The values and beliefs of a committed Christian are seen as radically opposed to those of the unconverted masses. They feel largely Satan and the forces of evil control the world. And so, they reason, conformity to the fads and fashions of popular society indicates identity with the world's system. The plain people insist that the church, guided by the Word of God and not the dictates of fashion, should decide what a Christian should wear. They point out that the fashion centers have not been known for their righteousness. Economically, they judge the fashion industry to be a deceitful, greedy force. Keeping up with the latest styles is seen as wasteful, planned obsolescence. The plain people take commitment to the brotherhood very seriously. An individual's dress is considered part of the united testimony of the group. Unbecoming conducts not only affects members own testimony and relationship with God, but the reputation of the whole church as well. By wearing distinctive garb, plain people are constantly conscious of being outwardly identified as Christians and so, ideally, they seek to make their conduct consistent with their dress. A Mennonite woman told how as a girl her father decided to take the family to an amusement park. He thought this would be innocent fun even though their church frowned on such entertainment. While they were at the park, the father overheard someone say in a disgusted tone, "Mennonites -- what are they doing here?" The family went home and never returned to such a
place again. Nearly every plain church has arrived at some kind of standard to govern the dress of its members. Some rules are spelled out specifically while others are general and subject to individual interpretation. There is usually an understanding of what is appropriate and what is not, even in the inexplicit areas.


**************************************************************************************


RECIPE
Artichokes Cooked in Marinade Recipe

By :Sylvia Schur & Vivian Schulte,

Measure Ingredient

2 whole artichokes -- (7 ounces each)

2 tablespoons white wine vinegar

2 teaspoons olive oil

1 clove garlic -- cut in half

1/2 small dried hot pepper -- or 4 peppercorns

1/4 teaspoon salt

Trim artichoke stem flat and pull off any bruised outer leaves. Cut off top third of artichoke and trim ends of remaining leaves with scissors. Place in pot just large enough to hold artichokes side by side. Pour 1 tablespoon vinegar and 1 teaspoon oil across top of each artichoke. Add boiling water to cover, garlic, hot pepper, and salt. If artichokes float, place a heavy heatproof plate on top to hold them down. Cover pot with a tight lid, bring to boil, and cook about 30 minutes, until tender. Let artichokes cool in liquid. Drain artichokes and cut in half lengthwise. Scoop out hairy choke. Serve warm, at room temperature, or chilled. (To refrigerate, place upside down in bowl, basting with a little of cooking marinade.)



NEWS Story
News headline Retrieved Kicking the Television Habit

Story: In a country where the people who own a television outnumber homes with indoor toilets, it's no surprise that TV exposure is at an all-time high in America. Scientists have studied the consequences of television violence for years but make little mention of the basic, psychological effects the "tube" has on our daily lives. The February edition of Scientific America devotes its feature article to the issue, putting excessive television viewing on par with substance abuse.

In an interesting twist to the latest research on addictions, authors Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi conducted a series of laboratory experiments that suggested viewers were less tense while watching television and showed less mental stimulation. During the course of the tests, the researchers discovered that the sense of relaxation and passivity ended when the TV set was turned off, but the lowered sense of alertness continued. Afterwards, people also said the programs depleted them of energy and their ability to concentrate. Do these side effects sound familiar? If they do, it's because habit-forming drugs work exactly the same way. The only difference is, people watch more television than they plan to, and the more they see, the less satisfaction they feel.

In fact, Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi found that viewers who took in over six hours of television a day reported feeling more anxious and less happy than people who watched two hours or less. The most convincing evidence that TV addicts qualify as substance abusers is in the treatment. Some addicts actually felt withdrawal when they cut back theyre viewing. Even families who were paid to change their TV habits for a month could not abstain altogether. Considering the latest violent and immodest fare we have to choose from, high doses of television do not bode well for an individuals emotional and spiritual well being.

In 1938, E.B. White made a prophetic statement. He said, "I believe that television is going to be the test of the modern world, and in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision, we shall discover either a new and unbearable disturbance of the general peace or a saving radiance in the sky. We shall stand or fall by television, of that I am sure." Sixty-three years later, the question now is not have we fallen, but how can we stop? Stay tuned.




To rate this e-maga-zine click here


http://www.cumuli.com/ezines/theway.ezine




AOL Users Click Here

http://www.cumuli.com/ezines/theway.ezine



Enter supporting content here